This letter confirms that Metropolitan Jonah was properly removed from his throne. This ends any argument regarding his restoration.

Moscow is not sanctioning any type of 'lawyering up,' but rather urging a settlement that does not involve a willful humiliation of a former First Hierarch. Were that to happen, the Orthodox world would go into panic mode (let's think, how many First Hierarchs are facing mounting criticism?). One only need look at the Bulgarian situation to understand how hesitant Synods are in removing even the most profoundly incapacitated senior bishops.

Moscow is also not, by this letter, telling the OCA to give him millions of dollars. The typical fate of a retired bishop is a nice apartment in a monastery. No travel expenses, family & friends plan, etc. Metropolitan Jonah never stopped being a monk, and a monk dies to the world. His natural place would be at St. Tikhon's Monastery, the senior monastery of the OCA, along side his predecessor, Metropolitan Herman.

Father, thank you for your level-headed insight into this. This is exactly what I was thinking.

Not to disagree with your analogy, but- have you never read hardcore, militant feminists? Every heterosexual sexual act is rape (committed against a women, of course), even with consent.

You can either change fiction into a fact by redefining what something means until it no longer has meaning or by simply hammering home those points that fit within your definition of the facts while rejecting everything else. Welcome to the post-modern world.

Not to disagree with your analogy, but- have you never read hardcore, militant feminists? Every heterosexual sexual act is rape (committed against a women, of course), even with consent.

You can either change fiction into a fact by redefining what something means until it no longer has meaning or by simply hammering home those points that fit within your definition of the facts while rejecting everything else. Welcome to the post-modern world.

You can't welcome anyone to place you are not at yourself.

I've got a very nice beach house there.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Just thought I should note that Metropolitan Jonah's little sister died this morning. There is a thread in the Prayer Forum for her. She was chrismated Orthodox last Sunday.

May her memory be eternal.

I hope and pray that Met. Jonah is allowed by the OCA synod to celebrate her funeral services at the local Orthodox Church. Going all the way to Father Gregory's church would be extremely costly. Lord have mercy.

Just thought I should note that Metropolitan Jonah's little sister died this morning. There is a thread in the Prayer Forum for her. She was chrismated Orthodox last Sunday.

May her memory be eternal.

I hope and pray that Met. Jonah is allowed by the OCA synod to celebrate her funeral services at the local Orthodox Church. Going all the way to Father Gregory's church would be extremely costly. Lord have mercy.

This is just a guess, I don't know anything for sure, but Laurie's funeral will likely take place in a ROCOR church. Metr. Jonah is freer to serve in ROCOR, and his sister would almost certainly prefer a ROCOR church to an OCA one.

I have no idea if Vladyka plans to serve her funeral or not. His parents just lost their only daughter...

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

He would only need a blessing from Metropolitan Hilarion, as far as I know.

No, he will need the blessing of the jurisdiction under which he serves, to serve in another jurisdiction also. I.e. when a priest travels, he needs the blessing of his bishop to serve elsewhere, and the blessing of the bishop who is the authority in the jurisdiction in which he intends to serve.

I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

Not only is this letter to Met. Tikhon a slap in the face telling the OCA to get their own house in order, but also Patriarch Kirill asks the OCA to "make comfortable" the life of Metropolitan Jonah. With his sister seriously ill and his aging parents, Metropolitan Jonah should be shown compassion. Met. Jonah is neither a thief nor rapist.

Wow. The third Rome has spoken. Praise the Lord.

Does anyone else find this (boldfaced text) a little disturbing? Webster's defines "full-fledged" as "fully developed, total, complete, having attained complete status." To what degree are relations between the OCA and other Local Orthodox Churches incomplete?

I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

Not only is this letter to Met. Tikhon a slap in the face telling the OCA to get their own house in order, but also Patriarch Kirill asks the OCA to "make comfortable" the life of Metropolitan Jonah. With his sister seriously ill and his aging parents, Metropolitan Jonah should be shown compassion. Met. Jonah is neither a thief nor rapist.

Wow. The third Rome has spoken. Praise the Lord.

Does anyone else find this (boldfaced text) a little disturbing? Webster's defines "full-fledged" as "fully developed, total, complete, having attained complete status." To what degree are relations between the OCA and other Local Orthodox Churches incomplete?

They don't all recognize its autocephaly.

In practice that's not all that important; they all recognize the OCA as part of the Church, but it's still an issue.

I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

Not only is this letter to Met. Tikhon a slap in the face telling the OCA to get their own house in order, but also Patriarch Kirill asks the OCA to "make comfortable" the life of Metropolitan Jonah. With his sister seriously ill and his aging parents, Metropolitan Jonah should be shown compassion. Met. Jonah is neither a thief nor rapist.

Wow. The third Rome has spoken. Praise the Lord.

Does anyone else find this (boldfaced text) a little disturbing? Webster's defines "full-fledged" as "fully developed, total, complete, having attained complete status." To what degree are relations between the OCA and other Local Orthodox Churches incomplete?

They don't all recognize its autocephaly.

In practice that's not all that important; they all recognize the OCA as part of the Church, but it's still an issue.

So those Local Orthodox Churches that do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA recognized it at one time? That recognition of autocephaly is what must be restored?

This letter confirms that Metropolitan Jonah was properly removed from his throne. This ends any argument regarding his restoration.

Moscow is not sanctioning any type of 'lawyering up,' but rather urging a settlement that does not involve a willful humiliation of a former First Hierarch. Were that to happen, the Orthodox world would go into panic mode (let's think, how many First Hierarchs are facing mounting criticism?). One only need look at the Bulgarian situation to understand how hesitant Synods are in removing even the most profoundly incapacitated senior bishops.

Moscow is also not, by this letter, telling the OCA to give him millions of dollars. The typical fate of a retired bishop is a nice apartment in a monastery. No travel expenses, family & friends plan, etc. Metropolitan Jonah never stopped being a monk, and a monk dies to the world. His natural place would be at St. Tikhon's Monastery, the senior monastery of the OCA, along side his predecessor, Metropolitan Herman.

Thank you, Father - what a relief! I was beginning to wonder if I was reading the same letter everyone else was. Or if I had had a stroke or other sudden cognitive impairment.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

Not only is this letter to Met. Tikhon a slap in the face telling the OCA to get their own house in order, but also Patriarch Kirill asks the OCA to "make comfortable" the life of Metropolitan Jonah. With his sister seriously ill and his aging parents, Metropolitan Jonah should be shown compassion. Met. Jonah is neither a thief nor rapist.

Wow. The third Rome has spoken. Praise the Lord.

Does anyone else find this (boldfaced text) a little disturbing? Webster's defines "full-fledged" as "fully developed, total, complete, having attained complete status." To what degree are relations between the OCA and other Local Orthodox Churches incomplete?

They don't all recognize its autocephaly.

In practice that's not all that important; they all recognize the OCA as part of the Church, but it's still an issue.

So those Local Orthodox Churches that do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA recognized it at one time? That recognition of autocephaly is what must be restored?

No. To my knowledge, the other local Orthodox Churches never recognized our autocephaly.

The problem we have is that there are too many folks trying to 'spin' a narrative that becomes more and more impossible to support.

For example, if Moscow had the same information that most of the 'conspiracy theorists' have regarding the Holy Synod's action (and the subsequent letter explaining the Synod's action and the circumstances regarding His Beatitude's retirement), this letter would not have been issued... unless the same theorists are will to condemn not only the OCA's entire Holy Synod, but also the Church of Moscow.

This letter confirms that Metropolitan Jonah was properly removed from his throne. This ends any argument regarding his restoration.

Moscow is not sanctioning any type of 'lawyering up,' but rather urging a settlement that does not involve a willful humiliation of a former First Hierarch. Were that to happen, the Orthodox world would go into panic mode (let's think, how many First Hierarchs are facing mounting criticism?). One only need look at the Bulgarian situation to understand how hesitant Synods are in removing even the most profoundly incapacitated senior bishops.

Moscow is also not, by this letter, telling the OCA to give him millions of dollars. The typical fate of a retired bishop is a nice apartment in a monastery. No travel expenses, family & friends plan, etc. Metropolitan Jonah never stopped being a monk, and a monk dies to the world. His natural place would be at St. Tikhon's Monastery, the senior monastery of the OCA, along side his predecessor, Metropolitan Herman.

Thank you, Father - what a relief! I was beginning to wonder if I was reading the same letter everyone else was. Or if I had had a stroke or other sudden cognitive impairment.

He would only need a blessing from Metropolitan Hilarion, as far as I know.

No, he will need the blessing of the jurisdiction under which he serves, to serve in another jurisdiction also. I.e. when a priest travels, he needs the blessing of his bishop to serve elsewhere, and the blessing of the bishop who is the authority in the jurisdiction in which he intends to serve.

But Metropolitan Jonah is not a priest, and he is not under the omophorion of Metropolitan Tikhon or any other bishop, so the analogy does not apply.

The situation is actually canonically ambiguous. Some would certainly argue that Apostolic canon XXXIV implies that Met. Jonah would need Met. Tikhon's permission to transfer to a different synod--but on the other hand, the OCA has been quite clear that since his resignation, Met. Jonah is *not* actually a member of the synod so it's decidedly unclear that that canon currently applies to him. And if we were actually geographically organized as the canons envision, then Metropolitan Jonah could certainly not excercise his episcopal office in North America without the permission of the synod (and Metropolitan) of North America but we all know how that works in actual practice.

For diplomatic reasons, it is highly unlikely (at least at the present time when everybody is doing a decent job of getting along under the auspices of the North American Assembly) that any other synod would take in Metropolitan Jonah without at least tacit approval by the OCA. But there's no clear canonical reason they couldn't, nor would the OCA have much recourse if they did.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

But Metropolitan Jonah is not a priest, and he is not under the omophorion of Metropolitan Tikhon or any other bishop, so the analogy does not apply.

Wrong. All ordained people are under the authority of the dioceasan bishop and they need his blessing to serve outside their diocese. That includes readers, subdeacons, deacons, presbyters, vicar bishops and also retired priests. Retired priests are not vagantes. They have to be assigned to the diocese if they want to serve.

The modern practice has been that retired hierarchs are still under the supervision of the Holy Synod. For example, Metropolitan Herman has been told where he must live and where he can go or not go (I just found all this out recently thanks to fellow posters). But, this is also the practice in Russia, where the OCA draws most of its traditions.

It is against our tradition for anyone to be the 'Lone Ranger.' We are all accountable to someone else, and that accountability always emanates from a Synod. To think that his retirement ends his accountability is simply unimaginable from an Orthodox perspective. That certainly does not work with priests, I can tell you that.

He would only need a blessing from Metropolitan Hilarion, as far as I know.

No, he will need the blessing of the jurisdiction under which he serves, to serve in another jurisdiction also. I.e. when a priest travels, he needs the blessing of his bishop to serve elsewhere, and the blessing of the bishop who is the authority in the jurisdiction in which he intends to serve.

But Metropolitan Jonah is not a priest, and he is not under the omophorion of Metropolitan Tikhon or any other bishop, so the analogy does not apply.

The situation is actually canonically ambiguous. Some would certainly argue that Apostolic canon XXXIV implies that Met. Jonah would need Met. Tikhon's permission to transfer to a different synod--but on the other hand, the OCA has been quite clear that since his resignation, Met. Jonah is *not* actually a member of the synod so it's decidedly unclear that that canon currently applies to him. And if we were actually geographically organized as the canons envision, then Metropolitan Jonah could certainly not excercise his episcopal office in North America without the permission of the synod (and Metropolitan) of North America but we all know how that works in actual practice.

For diplomatic reasons, it is highly unlikely (at least at the present time when everybody is doing a decent job of getting along under the auspices of the North American Assembly) that any other synod would take in Metropolitan Jonah without at least tacit approval by the OCA. But there's no clear canonical reason they couldn't, nor would the OCA have much recourse if they did.

The problem we have is that there are too many folks trying to 'spin' a narrative that becomes more and more impossible to support.

For example, if Moscow had the same information that most of the 'conspiracy theorists' have regarding the Holy Synod's action (and the subsequent letter explaining the Synod's action and the circumstances regarding His Beatitude's retirement), this letter would not have been issued... [/font][/size]

It seems the pro-Jonah folks are not the only ones trying to spin what amounts to a basic formality. Even if the most torrid conspiracy theories were true, they do not amount to anything that would cause one Autocephalous Church to cut ties with another Autocephalous Church (e.g., public teaching of heresy, or interference in the domain of another autocephalous Church). And unless the MP was ready to exercise the 'nuclear option' of excommunicating the OCA (or trying to revoke its autocephaly), then a formal letter from one Presiding Hierarch to another was going to be issued. There's nothing in that to indicate whether the MP thinks the OCA did a good thing or a bad thing--just basic recognition that the OCA did a thing (removed a Metropolitan and elected a new one) that as an autocephalous Church is it's own business.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

As I understand it, ROCOR is going through immense financial difficulties. Jordanville is in need, as is their New York cathedral. I'm not entirely sure that ROCOR is in a position to take on the financial burden of a retired metropolitan unless he's willing to merely take a cell in a monastery.

Given all the hierarchical visits from Russia in recent memory, one can hardly reduce the relationship between Moscow and the OCA to be one of mere 'formality.'

Moscow would also not stand by while the OCA removes its First Hierarch without cause, nor would it tolerate his insult in retirement. This is a delicate matter, because Patriarch Kirill is well-aware that such a habit could spread. If Moscow thought the OCA was out of control, it would swoop in to prevent such a precedence from taking hold.

This is not merely a matter of local discipline, but ecclesiology: when a Holy Synod 'attacks' its Primate (in office or retired) with 'false' charges, you have a pretty big scandal on your hands. Moscow is demanding that Metropolitan Jonah's dignity be respected in retirement, and that's not a mere formality to them.

The problem we have is that there are too many folks trying to 'spin' a narrative that becomes more and more impossible to support.

For example, if Moscow had the same information that most of the 'conspiracy theorists' have regarding the Holy Synod's action (and the subsequent letter explaining the Synod's action and the circumstances regarding His Beatitude's retirement), this letter would not have been issued... [/font][/size]

It seems the pro-Jonah folks are not the only ones trying to spin what amounts to a basic formality. Even if the most torrid conspiracy theories were true, they do not amount to anything that would cause one Autocephalous Church to cut ties with another Autocephalous Church (e.g., public teaching of heresy, or interference in the domain of another autocephalous Church). And unless the MP was ready to exercise the 'nuclear option' of excommunicating the OCA (or trying to revoke its autocephaly), then a formal letter from one Presiding Hierarch to another was going to be issued. There's nothing in that to indicate whether the MP thinks the OCA did a good thing or a bad thing--just basic recognition that the OCA did a thing (removed a Metropolitan and elected a new one) that as an autocephalous Church is it's own business.

I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

Not only is this letter to Met. Tikhon a slap in the face telling the OCA to get their own house in order, but also Patriarch Kirill asks the OCA to "make comfortable" the life of Metropolitan Jonah. With his sister seriously ill and his aging parents, Metropolitan Jonah should be shown compassion. Met. Jonah is neither a thief nor rapist.

Wow. The third Rome has spoken. Praise the Lord.

Does anyone else find this (boldfaced text) a little disturbing? Webster's defines "full-fledged" as "fully developed, total, complete, having attained complete status." To what degree are relations between the OCA and other Local Orthodox Churches incomplete?

They don't all recognize its autocephaly.

In practice that's not all that important; they all recognize the OCA as part of the Church, but it's still an issue.

So those Local Orthodox Churches that do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA recognized it at one time? That recognition of autocephaly is what must be restored?

No. To my knowledge, the other local Orthodox Churches never recognized our autocephaly.

Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech and Slovak Lands have recognized the autocephaly.

Antioch and Serbia have recognized the jurisdiction of Russia over the canonical territory of the OCA, and the roots of their own jurisdiction in the same territory coming from the Russian.

Albania has been neutral, although the OCA's Diocese of New England gave birth to the Church of Albania.

Romania has its own problems with recognizing no one's jurisdiction outside Romania.

Only Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and the Church of Greece (i.e. the "Greek Church") have opposed the OCA's autocephaly. But then, all them except perhaps Cyprus at one time or another has opposed their ethnarch's canon 28 take on this, by setting up their own jurisdiction in the "barbarian lands" here.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 12:48:52 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Given all the hierarchical visits from Russia in recent memory, one can hardly reduce the relationship between Moscow and the OCA to be one of mere 'formality.'

Moscow would also not stand by while the OCA removes its First Hierarch without cause, nor would it tolerate his insult in retirement. This is a delicate matter, because Patriarch Kirill is well-aware that such a habit could spread. If Moscow thought the OCA was out of control, it would swoop in to prevent such a precedence from taking hold.

This is not merely a matter of local discipline, but ecclesiology: when a Holy Synod 'attacks' its Primate (in office or retired) with 'false' charges, you have a pretty big scandal on your hands. Moscow is demanding that Metropolitan Jonah's dignity be respected in retirement, and that's not a mere formality to them.

The problem we have is that there are too many folks trying to 'spin' a narrative that becomes more and more impossible to support.

For example, if Moscow had the same information that most of the 'conspiracy theorists' have regarding the Holy Synod's action (and the subsequent letter explaining the Synod's action and the circumstances regarding His Beatitude's retirement), this letter would not have been issued... [/font][/size]

It seems the pro-Jonah folks are not the only ones trying to spin what amounts to a basic formality. Even if the most torrid conspiracy theories were true, they do not amount to anything that would cause one Autocephalous Church to cut ties with another Autocephalous Church (e.g., public teaching of heresy, or interference in the domain of another autocephalous Church). And unless the MP was ready to exercise the 'nuclear option' of excommunicating the OCA (or trying to revoke its autocephaly), then a formal letter from one Presiding Hierarch to another was going to be issued. There's nothing in that to indicate whether the MP thinks the OCA did a good thing or a bad thing--just basic recognition that the OCA did a thing (removed a Metropolitan and elected a new one) that as an autocephalous Church is it's own business.

Yes, this is nothing more than Constantinople's involvement in the recent deposition of the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The modern practice has been that retired hierarchs are still under the supervision of the Holy Synod. For example, Metropolitan Herman has been told where he must live and where he can go or not go (I just found all this out recently thanks to fellow posters). But, this is also the practice in Russia, where the OCA draws most of its traditions.

And less than 20 years ago, when ROCOR-OCA relationships were not so good, the OCA accepted as a 'retired archbishop' a man who's last canonical status was 'suspended ROCOR deacon'. And who certainly did not have a canonical release from ROCOR. As I already remarked, in today's era of good relationships, I can't see any synod taking Metropolitan Jonah over the objections of the OCA--no one man is worth disrupting the progress we've made. But there is no formal rule that bars the MP/ROCOR from taking in Metropolitan Jonah. And if they did, the OCA would not have any effective recourse--any more than they have been able to limit Metropolitan Jonah's concelebrating in ROCOR churches even while they do limit what OCA churches he can attend and serve in.

Quote

It is against our tradition for anyone to be the 'Lone Ranger.'

No one's talking about "the Lone Ranger". The question was, could the *synod* of ROCOR (or the MP) take in Metropolitan Jonah.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

And less than 20 years ago, when ROCOR-OCA relationships were not so good, the OCA accepted as a 'retired archbishop' a man who's last canonical status was 'suspended ROCOR deacon'.

There is no analogy. 20 years ago the OCA and ROCOR as close as today they are with Eastern Catholics.

Quote

Bishops are not priests.

They are. And non-dioceasan bishops are subject to their dioceasan bishops (and the dioceasan bishops are subject to their synods). We are not Protestant where every minister does whatever he wants to.

Given all the hierarchical visits from Russia in recent memory, one can hardly reduce the relationship between Moscow and the OCA to be one of mere 'formality.'

I didn't call the relationship between Moscow and the OCA a 'formality.' I called the little half-page letter of congratulations a formality. If you take out the cautionary sentence about relations with other Churches and dealing with 'his predecessor', the letter is pure boiler-plate for what the MP sends to any new presiding hieararch (see for example the same letter sent recently to the new Patriarch of Serbia--remove the parts specific to the history of Serbia and remove the one aforementioned sentence from the letter to Metropolitan Tikhon and they are basically the same letter).

Quote

Moscow would also not stand by while the OCA removes its First Hierarch without cause, nor would it tolerate his insult in retirement. This is a delicate matter, because Patriarch Kirill is well-aware that such a habit could spread. If Moscow thought the OCA was out of control, it would swoop in to prevent such a precedence from taking hold.

This is not merely a matter of local discipline, but ecclesiology: when a Holy Synod 'attacks' its Primate (in office or retired) with 'false' charges, you have a pretty big scandal on your hands. Moscow is demanding that Metropolitan Jonah's dignity be respected in retirement, and that's not a mere formality to them.[/font][/size]

I have no idea what you are basing this on. The only way Moscow could 'swoop in' would be to attempt to revoke the OCA's autocephaly. And I say 'attempt' because there is no mechanism by which they could actually do so--if the majority, or even a significant minority, of the bishops of the OCA Synod refused to accept Moscow's authority to do that and continued to operate as an autocephalous Church (a certainty if you look at the attitude towards the autocephaly expressed by some of our bishops as well as posters here from the old OCA heartland in the NE) the only options would be a for Moscow to accept a humuliating defeat and back down or escalate to schism. Again, even if we assume that the very worst conspiracy theories are true (which, btw, I don't), there is nothing here which is worth either result to Moscow. Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

And less than 20 years ago, when ROCOR-OCA relationships were not so good, the OCA accepted as a 'retired archbishop' a man who's last canonical status was 'suspended ROCOR deacon'.

There is no analogy. 20 years ago the OCA and ROCOR as close as today they are with Eastern Catholics.

Not true. Or even close to true. I was in the OCA at that time and knew many clergy in both the OCA and ROCOR (my daughter's godfather was (and is) a deacon in ROCOR) not to mention laity who were OCA or ROCOR or attended parishes in both jurisdictions on a regular basis. With the full blessing of my OCA bishop, I communed in ROCOR churches many times while traveling, and saw the obverse as well. Yes, there was acrimony and yes there were formal rules against concelebration. But there was never any question about whether each side was Orthodox. The OCA monastery 'St. John of Shang-hai and San Francisco' was established in this same period.

Quote

Bishops are not priests.

They are. And non-dioceasan bishops are subject to their dioceasan bishops (and the dioceasan bishops are subject to their synods). We are not Protestant where every minister does whatever he wants to.[/quote]

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."

I think I've heard more of this from the West and South (ironically) than from the Northeast. I wish everyone could just get over it. We all loved Met. Jonah but he's not going to be suddenly reinstated, and he'll definitely be taken care of. There are so many in the OCA that wish him well it should not even be an issue. It's a moot point!

By the will of the plenitude of the Orthodox Church in America, a high responsibility has been placed on you for the future of the youngest Local Orthodox Church, which has experienced a difficult time in her history in recent years. I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

The pertinent text, according to Google Translate, appears to be "будут восстановлены полноценные связи," translated as "will restore full-fledged relations."

By the will of the plenitude of the Orthodox Church in America, a high responsibility has been placed on you for the future of the youngest Local Orthodox Church, which has experienced a difficult time in her history in recent years. I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

The pertinent text, according to Google Translate, appears to be "будут восстановлены полноценные связи" translated as "will restore full-fledged relations."

I was wondering if we have any Russian speakers here who could give this a go. I tried Google, Babylon and a few other online services and I got gibberish for the entirety - but as stated with the phrase by Google.

By the will of the plenitude of the Orthodox Church in America, a high responsibility has been placed on you for the future of the youngest Local Orthodox Church, which has experienced a difficult time in her history in recent years. I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

The pertinent text, according to Google Translate, appears to be "будут восстановлены полноценные связи" translated as "will restore full-fledged relations."

I was wondering if we have any Russian speakers here who could give this a go. I tried Google, Babylon and a few other online services and I got gibberish for the entirety - but as stated with the phrase by Google.

Russian speaker here :-) The English translation is accurate -- "will be restored," implying relations having been good, no longer being so, and being put back to being good.

Russian speaker here :-) The English translation is accurate -- "will be restored," implying relations having been good, no longer being so, and being put back to being good.

I just assumed it was.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 12:18:25 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

By the will of the plenitude of the Orthodox Church in America, a high responsibility has been placed on you for the future of the youngest Local Orthodox Church, which has experienced a difficult time in her history in recent years. I hope that through the efforts of Your Beatitude the American Church will restore full-fledged relations with other Local Orthodox Churches, restore peace and harmony within herself and make comfortable the further life of your predecessor at the Metropolitan See of Washington.

The pertinent text, according to Google Translate, appears to be "будут восстановлены полноценные связи" translated as "will restore full-fledged relations."

I was wondering if we have any Russian speakers here who could give this a go. I tried Google, Babylon and a few other online services and I got gibberish for the entirety - but as stated with the phrase by Google.

Russian speaker here :-) The English translation is accurate -- "will be restored," implying relations having been good, no longer being so, and being put back to being good.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

The cause concerns me somewhat less than the degree to which relations are less than full-fledged. The patriarch didn't mention the former, but he made a point of drawing attention to the latter.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

FatherGiryus, your read on the situation is very wrong.

Metropolitan Jonah is not even remotely responsible for the egregious mishandling of this situation by the OCA hierarchy and administration.

Moscow has not been caught off-guard, snowed, or made in any way less than fully aware of what has gone on.

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.